JBF RAK LLC v. United States
961 F. Supp. 2d 1274
Ct. Intl. Trade2014Background
- JBF RAK LLC, a UAE manufacturer/exporter of PET film, was assigned a 4.88% weighted-average antidumping margin by Commerce for the review period Nov. 6, 2008–Oct. 31, 2009.
- JBF RAK challenged Commerce’s Final Results before the Court of International Trade under USCIT Rule 56.2.
- Plaintiff raised three principal challenges: (1) Commerce’s use of zeroing in calculating dumping margins; (2) Commerce’s policy of issuing liquidation instructions 15 days after publication of final results (the “15‑day rule”); and (3) Commerce’s home‑market sales determinations, including ordinary‑course‑of‑trade exclusions and model‑matching.
- The court stayed the case pending the Federal Circuit’s decision in Union Steel, which upheld Commerce’s zeroing methodology in administrative reviews.
- The court affirmed Commerce’s Final Results: it sustained zeroing (as controlled by Union Steel), declined to reach the 15‑day rule on the merits because JBF RAK failed to exhaust administrative remedies, and rejected JBF RAK’s home‑market challenges (deeming ordinary‑course arguments waived and finding model‑matching reasonable).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Zeroing in administrative review | Zeroing is unlawful; Commerce may not interpret 19 U.S.C. §1677(35) differently in reviews vs. investigations | Commerce’s interpretation is reasonable and permissible | Court sustained Commerce’s zeroing methodology (Union Steel controls) |
| 15‑day liquidation instruction policy | Policy is unlawful; SKF decisions show the policy is invalid; seeks declaratory relief and costs | JBF RAK failed to raise the issue administratively (no exhaustion); if not waived, policy is reasonable | Claim dismissed for failure to exhaust; court requires agency record and views before review |
| Ordinary course of trade exclusions for certain home‑market sales | Certain home‑market sales were aberrational (small quantities, high prices/profits) and should be excluded from normal value | Commerce considered and rejected exclusion; sales fall within a smooth distribution and lack indicia of aberration | Court deems JBF RAK’s challenge waived for failure to frame arguments against substantial‑evidence standard and affirms Commerce’s factual finding |
| Model‑matching (identification of foreign like product) | Commerce should match to coated (acrylic coated/corona treated) home product rather than Commerce’s chosen plain/corona match | Commerce used its established hierarchy (specification, microns, thickness code, surface treatment); surface treatment is least significant; JBF RAK’s suggested matches were outside the contemporaneity window or below cost | Court upheld Commerce’s model‑matching as reasonable; no compelling reason to change methodology |
Key Cases Cited
- Union Steel v. United States, 713 F.3d 1101 (Fed. Cir. 2013) (upholding Commerce’s zeroing methodology in administrative reviews)
- JTEKT Corp. v. United States, 642 F.3d 1378 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (criticisms of zeroing in certain contexts)
- Dongbu Steel Co. v. United States, 635 F.3d 1363 (Fed. Cir. 2011) (addressing zeroing distinctions)
- Chevron U.S.A., Inc. v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc., 467 U.S. 837 (U.S. 1984) (framework for judicial review of agency statutory interpretations)
- SKF USA, Inc. v. United States, 537 F.3d 1373 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (Commerce’s model‑matching discretion and related doctrine)
- Cemex, S.A. v. United States, 133 F.3d 897 (Fed. Cir. 1998) (Commerce as factfinder on ordinary‑course questions)
- Pesquera Mares Australes Ltda. v. United States, 266 F.3d 1372 (Fed. Cir. 2001) (delegation of model‑matching methodology to Commerce)
- Koyo Seiko Co. v. United States, 551 F.3d 1286 (Fed. Cir. 2008) (model‑matching explained)
- DuPont Teijin Films USA v. United States, 407 F.3d 1211 (Fed. Cir. 2005) (definition of substantial evidence)
- Consolo v. Federal Maritime Comm’n, 383 U.S. 607 (U.S. 1966) (standard for substantial evidence)